AP: Trump intends to announce his Supreme Court pick on Feb. 2

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

You continue to ignore why Democrats did this which means you aren't really stating facts. Would you like to look further? Is there any amount of obstructionism that warrants doing away with the filibuster? 

 

 

 

There is always an excuse right?  "Your side is crap because they did X, but my side, they had a good reason." 

 

Your story, you tell it.

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

I'm confused.  So you called GOP reps and told them to stop filibustering prior to Reid's 2013 rule changes, but those same Republicans told you they couldn't stip filibustering because elections had consequences (elections which resulted in them being the Senate minority)?

 

And even if that is the case, that still doesn't explain why the GOP's responsibility only ever begins AFTER the rule change for you.

 

I mean, you called your reps pre-2013 rule change and told them to stop filibustering, right?

 

So presumably you understood the abusive nature of what the GOP was doing and the serious consequences they would reap.  Right?

 

I mean, there's a clear and obvious cause and effect and presumably opposition to the GOP filibusters would have enabled you to see said cause of the rule change.

 

The poster asked, "Why didn't you call your Rep.......?   I live in a heavily Democratic Geo.  My rep is a Democrat.  

 

All cards on the table.  The GOP did filibuster but were you out of the country when GWB was in office?  The Dems did the same thing to his Court appointees.   I mean, you guys act like this is the first time any of this crap has ever happened. 

 

This is SSDD.  I mean, you gotta know that right?

 

 

[mrcunning15]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

There was no bypassing of rules, they voted to change the rule......just like someone else did.

 

Bypassing Tradition. Changing rules and traditions to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, mrcunning15 said:

 

Bypassing Tradition. Changing rules and traditions to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I agree with this, but I ask you, when the left was "Changing rules and traditions to suit their needs", did you do anything or say anything to dissuade that practice?  Honest question.  If you did, then I applaud you, if you didn't, then how do you expect the other side to take any of that statement seriously?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now.

 

At the end of 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, agreedto let five judges get a vote before Presidents' Day this year—a commitment that he followed through on. But only one additional judge has has been confirmed since then. Republicans would have to go on a spree of votes for the rest of the year to match the 68 judges that President George W. Bush got through the Democratic Senate in the last two years of his presidency—38 of whom had already been confirmed by April 2008.

[mrcunning15]

11 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Do you love that?  That's really good because Obama said it loud enough and you are going to hear it over and over again.  Own it.

 

I will own it in the context that elections have consequences in that the minority party at least has to negotiate in good faith with the majority party and can't bully or be unwilling to compromise, but the R's proved that's not really the case you can obstruct,blame,deflect and still get what you want.

 

So in the end it seems like elections really only have consequences for Dem's since they are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight it seems like.

[DogofWar1]

18 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

There is always an excuse right?  "Your side is crap because they did X, but my side, they had a good reason." 

 

Your story, you tell it.

The escalation of filibuster use that immediately preceded the GOP's usage under Obama was in the mid-2000's with W's nominees.  Was that escalation entirely on Dems?  I don't think so, not entirely, but suffice to say Dems bore a significant portion of the responsibility, without assigning a percentage likely to spark further debate.

 

That is, Dems aren't blameless.  Filibuster escalation was a back-and-forth thing (it doesn't start in 2005.  Filibusters first cracked the 60 line in the first two years of Clinton's Presidency).

 

However, that entire mid-2000s thing was ultimately resolved by the parties working together to reach a workable solution through the gang of 14.  By 2013 however, no gang of 14 style solution could be reached as no GOP members wanted to break ranks and be willing to vote to approve Obama nominees.  Anyone who broke ranks was vilified and primaried.

 

Dems backed down on filibustering in 2005 and helped craft a workable solution.  The GOP refused to do the same in 2013.

[bearrock]

Filibuster only works if the voters punish the party that abuses it to obstruct and the senators who show more loyalty to party than spirit of compromise.  When the letter next to the candidate becomes more important than their policies and voting record, filibuster simply enables the minority to gum up everything in DC without fear of reprisal.  At the end of the day, voters get the government they deserve.  Country knew full well going into the election that Repubs would likely use the nuclear option to confirm Trump's conservative nominee.  They collectively got their conservative president and senate.  Hope the average repub voters like their party's other policies more than they liked the budget and healthcare.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, mrcunning15 said:

 

I will own it in the context that elections have consequences in that the minority party at least has to negotiate in good faith with the majority party and can't bully or be unwilling to compromise, but the R's proved that's not really the case you can obstruct,blame,deflect and still get what you want.

 

So in the end it seems like elections really only have consequences for Dem's since they are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight it seems like.

 

Perhaps, what you say is true, I don't know.  I mean, there is really a lot more that would need to be weighed and considered before I could make that statement IMO, but I will say this.  Not so long ago, it was the Right who was carrying the Butter knife.  I don't really feel as if either side has "Gotten what they want."   At least, not 100% the way they wanted it. 

 

The Left wanted to block appointments in the Lower Courts so they created the Nuclear Option.  They blocked but now it's come back on them in the Higher Court.  Who ultimately pays?  The people.

 

The Right didn't bring Obama's candidate up for vote.  That blocked the nominee but now it's come back on them in how the Left has voted for a Candidate that they overwhelmingly supported for appointment to the lower court.  Who ultimately pays?  The people.

 

I can go on and on here but do I really need to?  I said earlier that I didn't think either side did the right thing.  I stated that I believed both parties are self serving and that they can not be trusted to rain themselves in, when they have authority to do the wrong thing.  I believe I have been consistent all along, where this is concerned.

 

If you don't agree, there is nothing I can really do about that but if you go back in this thread, you will see that this has been my position.

8 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The escalation of filibuster use that immediately preceded the GOP's usage under Obama was in the mid-2000's with W's nominees.  Was that escalation entirely on Dems?  I don't think so, not entirely, but suffice to say Dems bore a significant portion of the responsibility, without assigning a percentage likely to spark further debate.

 

That is, Dems aren't blameless.  Filibuster escalation was a back-and-forth thing (it doesn't start in 2005.  Filibusters first cracked the 60 line in the first two years of Clinton's Presidency).

 

However, that entire mid-2000s thing was ultimately resolved by the parties working together to reach a workable solution through the gang of 14.  By 2013 however, no gang of 14 style solution could be reached as no GOP members wanted to break ranks and be willing to vote to approve Obama nominees.  Anyone who broke ranks was vilified and primaried.

 

Dems backed down on filibustering in 2005 and helped craft a workable solution.  The GOP refused to do the same in 2013.

 

I believe that I have already addressed this in my previous post.

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Filibuster only works if the voters punish the party that abuses it to obstruct and the senators who show more loyalty to party than spirit of compromise.  When the letter next to the candidate becomes more important than their policies and voting record, filibuster simply enables the minority to gum up everything in DC without fear of reprisal.  At the end of the day, voters get the government they deserve.  Country knew full well going into the election that Repubs would likely use the nuclear option to confirm Trump's conservative nominee.  They collectively got their conservative president and senate.  Hope the average repub voters like their party's other policies more than they liked the budget and healthcare.

 

I agree with most all of this.  I do, however, wonder if the Left will take the very wise words you posted and apply them to their own party?  Both sides could and should take lesson from this.  Do you think they will?

 

 

[mrcunning15]

7 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I agree with this, but I ask you, when the left was "Changing rules and traditions to suit their needs", did you do anything or say anything to dissuade that practice?  Honest question.  If you did, then I applaud you, if you didn't, then how do you expect the other side to take any of that statement seriously?

 

It's a matter of degree and circumstances. Lower level judges do not have the sway of the supreme court, hell those appointments aren't even included in the constitution, like the supreme court. In a perfect world I would like to have judges be as partial as possible and not be tied politically at all b/c i believe that's what alot of people used a justification to vote for trump. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, mrcunning15 said:

 

It's a matter of degree and circumstances. Lower level judges do not have the sway of the supreme court, hell those appointments aren't even included in the constitution, like the supreme court. In a perfect world I would like to have judges be as partial as possible and not be tied politically at all b/c i believe that's what alot of people used a justification to vote for trump. 

 

Is it?  I think there is certainly room for debate there but that is another discussion.

 

Here is my point.  You have to know that if you open the door on something like that, the other side is going to step through it.  There is overwhelming evidence, on both sides, that this is what will happen.

 

I can't go to the Left an say, "Stop this practice and here is why!"  You can't come Right and say that either.  Policing both parties has to come from the base of each party.  Until that is understood and adopted, nothing will change.  

[bearrock]

9 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I agree with most all of this.  I do, however, wonder if the Left will take the very wise words you posted and apply them to their own party?  Both sides could and should take lesson from this.  Do you think they will?

 

 

We can only hope right?  I may be looking at it through rose tinted glasses, but looking at many of the laws that were passed during the 60's through the 80's, I don't think a lot of those could be passed today.  The lack of cross party compromise has severely damaged Congress's ability to tackle the intermediate to semi-large issues.  So many laws badly need updating, but fear of party primary challenges have forced many from both sides to flee from the moderate middle where I think majority of Americans reside.  

[Gamebreaker]

....and the last few pages are why political parties in this country do more harm than good. 

[mrcunning15]

 

2 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Is it?  I think there is certainly room for debate there but that is another discussion.

 

Here is my point.  You have to know that if you open the door on something like that, the other side is going to step through it.  There is overwhelming evidence, on both sides, that this is what will happen.

 

I can't go to the Left an say, "Stop this practice and here is why!"  You can't come Right and say that either.  Policing both parties has to come from the base of each party.  Until that is understood and adopted, nothing will change.  

 

Yeah that makes sense the old slippery slope argument i guess. What was it that churchill said "You can expect Americans to do the right thing only after they have exhausted all other options."

 

This article has some interesting perspectives about where this could lead to. Not sure if i necessarily think it will turn out this way though.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nuking-the-filibuster-may-hurt-republicans-in-the-long-run/

[ABQCOWBOY]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

We can only hope right?  I may be looking at it through rose tinted glasses, but looking at many of the laws that were passed during the 60's through the 80's, I don't think a lot of those could be passed today.  The lack of cross party compromise has severely damaged Congress's ability to tackle the intermediate to semi-large issues.  So many laws badly need updating, but fear of party primary challenges have forced many from both sides to flee from the moderate middle where I think majority of Americans reside.  

 

I can not disagree.   I would go so far as to say that I am not even sure a simple majority is a bad thing.  I mean, that's how it used to be done, years ago.

 

The real problem I have here is the ease with which Government seems to be able to do away with rule of law and simply change it to whatever the incumbent Administration would like.  That is a very dangerous way to Govern and it is not in the people's best interests.  End of day, we will pay the price for the decisions that are being made by all of these craptastic politicians.  That's really the problem, to me.

[ixcuincle]

Neil gorsuch is a well deserving individual for the justice of the Supreme Court and his confirmation today pleases me greatly. Not really anything wrong with the man. Solid choice. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

Neil gorsuch is a well deserving individual for the justice of the Supreme Court and his confirmation today pleases me greatly. Not really anything wrong with the man. Solid choice. 

That seat should have been filled a year ago and everyone knows it.

The GOP held the Supreme Court hostage. Now we get another dinosaur who believes mytgs about how laws are read and interpreted. So now we get to enjoy more rulings like Citizens United.

 

As for the Senate, well my loathing for McConnell is about on par with Trump these days. I actually like Rand Paul more....and THAT folks is saying something!!

[ABQCOWBOY]

9 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That seat should have been filled a year ago and everyone knows it.

The GOP held the Supreme Court hostage. Now we get another dinosaur who believes mytgs about how laws are read and interpreted. So now we get to enjoy more rulings like Citizens United.

 

As for the Senate, well my loathing for McConnell is about on par with Trump these days. I actually like Rand Paul more....and THAT folks is saying something!!

 

Not everyone.  That's the problem.  One side sees it as you do, the other side sees it different. 

 

Personally, I think there should be a law passed that dictates how this should work.  I think that if you are in the last term of your Presidency, there should be a deadline as to how long you have to appoint somebody.  That would take care of it.  Or at least until one side or the other decided to just change the law.

[Hersh]

12 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Not everyone.  That's the problem.  One side sees it as you do, the other side sees it different. 

 

Personally, I think there should be a law passed that dictates how this should work.  I think that if you are in the last term of your Presidency, there should be a deadline as to how long you have to appoint somebody.  That would take care of it.  Or at least until one side or the other decided to just change the law.

 

Sounds unconstitutional. When a President is elected, they have the ability to appoint somebody throughout their entire term. Otherwise, what's the point of a term. Obama was elected to serve 4 years. He was given 3 years and one month before it was suddenly too late have a SC nominee approved. That's less than 80% of his term. Are we going to apply that to all lawmakers? No more work after a certain amount of time. Obama's nominee was even suggested for the SC by members of the GOP during the second seat Obama filled. That's indefensible try as some might.  

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Sounds unconstitutional. 

I do love the argument--

"Sure, we acted in a way that was unprecedented and most likely unconstitutional and yes, we obstructed at a level never seen before in the history of the United States by a magnitude of order... but you guys are just as bad and now that we're in power we should all stop so that we can do whatever we want no matter how wrongheaded, misguided, or dangerous!"

 

The two sides are not the same. The actions of the Republicans have been determinative in everything we are seeing today.This is not the Ds did it and it was just tit for tat. This was the Rs loaded up the shotgun and shot the country in the face and the Ds hit back with a rubber band so the Rs rolled out the tanks. The Ds countered with a water pistol and so the Rs nuked everything to Hell. 

 

Not exaggerating.

[ixcuincle]

Republicans controlled the Senate at the time. Didn't want gorsuch? Don't lose the election. Problem solved. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

21 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Sounds unconstitutional. When a President is elected, they have the ability to appoint somebody throughout their entire term. Otherwise, what's the point of a term. Obama was elected to serve 4 years. He was given 3 years and one month before it was suddenly too late have a SC nominee approved. That's less than 80% of his term. Are we going to apply that to all lawmakers? No more work after a certain amount of time. Obama's nominee was even suggested for the SC by members of the GOP during the second seat Obama filled. That's indefensible try as some might.  

 

And Congress has the right to table a vote or filibuster.  That's why I said a law should be passed.  That is not unconsitutional, and for the record, doesn't matter how long an President has, within his term.  It matters when a new Justice is needed. 

 

You can take the approach you are taking now and be in the exact same situation the next time this happens, if not worse or you can figure out a way to correct the problem so that the process works the way it is supposed to.

 

Your choice.......

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

7 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

Republicans controlled the Senate at the time. Didn't want gorsuch? Don't lose the election. Problem solved. 

 

One day this will be a brown country. I doubt republicans will be so glib then. You guys are behind the steering wheel for the next 4 years, enjoy.  

[Burgold]

12 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

Republicans controlled the Senate at the time. Didn't want gorsuch? Don't lose the election. Problem solved. 

That's a faulty/wholly dishonest argument. We won the election. Obama nominated a very legitimate moderate Justice. The Senate failed to do their Constitutional duty. Elections don't matter with this brand of the GOP. The Constitution does not matter with this brand of GOP. Want to bet that if Hillary won they still would not be voting on a SCOTUS nominee. They would argue that they can't while the "email" scandal hangs overhead and they would stretch it out if they could four or even eight years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Personally, I think there should be a law passed that dictates how this should work.  I think that if you are in the last term of your Presidency, there should be a deadline as to how long you have to appoint somebody.  That would take care of it.  Or at least until one side or the other decided to just change the law.

There is a deadline....January 20th. I might be convinced that it should be the day after the election if the incumbent loses/doesn't run again.

Seriously, Presidential powers extend the FULL length of their term. I will grant that it is more ambiguous during the lane duck period (time after the election).

If we start down the road that Presidential powers end earlier then it'll soon be cut to nothing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

27 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

And Congress has the right to table a vote or filibuster.  That's why I said a law should be passed.  That is not unconsitutional, and for the record, doesn't matter how long an President has, within his term.  It matters when a new Justice is needed. 

 

You can take the approach you are taking now and be in the exact same situation the next time this happens, if not worse or you can figure out a way to correct the problem so that the process works the way it is supposed to.

 

Your choice.......

The Senate would still have the right to fillibuster or refuse hearings even with your arbitrary deadline, unless that law forces the Senate to give a hearing to a nominee if the nomination is made prior to the deadline. My argument for the deadline is the beginning of the lame duck period of an administration. And a lame duck period is defined as the time period following an election that the incumbent loses or doesn't run again.